There is plenty of speculation happening about whether the “promise”, delivered during a phone call, had been observed personally or was intercepted. Some clarification on that has come from one of the contributing reporters on The Washington Post’s scoop about the “promise.” This fact was not included in WaPo’s story.
Investigative Reporter Carol Leonnig, in a call with Rachel Maddow on wednesday evening, stated that,
… somebody who used to work at the White House, and now, has returned to their Intelligence agency, has complained to the Inspector General that this is such a serious and flagrant abuse, that they want it on the record. They want it noted. And the Inspector General has also made it clear that this is something the Gang of Eight would normally be briefed about. …
The sources are also saying — and stressing — that this is some sort of promise that the President has made.
What means is that we can probably stop worrying that this is about something picked up through secret surveillance of dumbass’s shitty, unsafe mobile. Not that i hope that isn’t already being done, as a matter of record, but that we’re not facing thorny legal constraints as to admissibility of evidence and howls about “deep state” and the rest of it.
Peeps from the various Intelligence agencies regularly work within the White House administration. There are IC people walking in and out of there all the time. What Ms Leonnig has dropped is that our whistleblower was one such individual — working for an as-yet unknown agency — who’d been detailed to the White House, and has since returned to their agency.
It’s not clear whether this person approached the Inspector General before, or after, they’d left their TDY on Pennsylvania Avenue. What that means is that we do not know when the offending “promise” was made.
The Intelligence Committee is meeting in closed session at 9am, expecting to speak with the Inspector General. They, then, will know, before lunch time, at least something about the delay in informing them about this complaint.
As i understand it, the IG may not reveal to the Committee the substance of the complaint itself However, the complainant, upon informing the (Acting) Director of their intent, may do so without reprisal. Stay tuned for more.